[Federal Register: October 10, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 58653-58658]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10oc03-40]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-866]
Certain Folding Gift Boxes From the People's Republic of China
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of antidumping duty
administrative review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the
Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain folding gift boxes from the People's
Republic of China. The review covers two manufacturers/exporters and
the period of review is August 6, 2001, through December 31, 2002.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
normal value by one of the companies subject to this review. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative
review, we will instruct the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to
assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
[[Page 58654]]
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Moats (Red Point), Yang Jin
Chun (Yun Choy), or Thomas Schauer, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-5047, (202) 482-5760, and (202) 482-0410, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
On January 8, 2002, we published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on folding gift boxes from the People's Republic
of China (PRC). See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Folding Gift Boxes
from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 864 (Jan. 8, 2002).
On January 2, 2003, we published a notice of opportunity to request
an antidumping duty administrative review on folding gift boxes from
the PRC. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review,
68 FR 80 (Jan. 2, 2003). On January 30, 2003, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.213(b)(2), Red Point Paper Products Co., Ltd. (Red Point), a
producer covered by the antidumping duty order, requested that the
Department conduct an administrative review of the company. On January
31, 2003, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), U.S. folding gift box
producers Harvard Folding Box Company, Inc., and Field Container
Company L.P. requested that the Department conduct an administrative
review of Yun Choy Ltd. (Yun Choy), a Chinese producer and/or exporter
of the subject merchandise. On February 21, 2003, in accordance with
section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19
CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we issued a notice of initiation of an
antidumping duty administrative review of this order and named Red
Point and Yun Choy as respondents of this review. See Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 9048
(Feb. 27, 2003).
On April 14, 2003, Red Point submitted its Section A response, on
April 21, 2003, its Sections C and D responses, and on June 11, 2003,
its supplemental responses. Yun Choy received the original
questionnaire but did not respond. See ``The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of
Facts Otherwise Available'' section below.
Scope of Order
The products covered by this antidumping duty order are certain
folding gift boxes. Certain folding gift boxes are a type of folding or
knock-down carton manufactured from paper or paperboard. Certain
folding gift boxes are produced from a variety of recycled and virgin
paper or paperboard materials, including, but not limited to, clay-
coated paper or paperboard and kraft (bleached or unbleached) paper or
paperboard. The scope of the order excludes gift boxes manufactured
from paper or paperboard of a thickness of more than 0.8 millimeters,
corrugated paperboard, or paper mache. The scope of the order also
excludes those gift boxes for which no side of the box, when assembled,
is at least nine inches in length.
Certain folding gift boxes are typically decorated with a holiday
motif using various processes, including printing, embossing,
debossing, and foil stamping, but may also be plain white or printed
with a single color. The subject merchandise includes certain folding
gift boxes, with or without handles, whether finished or unfinished,
and whether in one-piece or multi-piece configuration. One-piece gift
boxes are die-cut or otherwise formed so that the top, bottom, and
sides form a single, contiguous unit. Two-piece gift boxes are those
with a folded bottom and a folded top as separate pieces. Certain
folding gift boxes are generally packaged in shrink-wrap, cellophane,
or other packaging materials, in single or multi-box packs for sale to
the retail customer. The scope of the order excludes folding gift boxes
that have a retailer's name, logo, trademark or similar company
information printed prominently on the box's top exterior (such folding
gift boxes are often known as ``not-for-resale'' gift boxes or ``give-
away'' gift boxes and may be provided by department and specialty
stores at no charge to their retail customers). The scope of the order
also excludes folding gift boxes where both the outside of the box is a
single color and the box is not packaged in shrink-wrap, cellophane,
other resin-based packaging films, or paperboard.
Imports of the subject merchandise are classified under Harmonized
Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 4819.20.00.40
and 4819.50.40.60. These subheadings also cover products that are
outside the scope of the order. Furthermore, although the HTSUS
subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Non-Market-Economy Country Status
The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market-economy (NME)
country in all past antidumping duty administrative reviews. See, e.g.,
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Synthetic
Indigo from the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 53711, 53712 (Sep.
12, 2003), and Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission
of the Antidumping Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles from
the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 53109, 53114 (Sep. 9, 2003). A
designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by the
Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act.
No party in this review has requested a revocation of the PRC's NME
status. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined to continue to
treat the PRC as an NME. When we review imports from an NME, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs us to base the normal value (NV) on the
NME producer's factors of production, valued in a market economy at a
comparable level of economic development and that is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise. The sources used to value
individual factors are discussed in the ``Factor Valuations'' section,
below.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department begins with
a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. In this case, Red Point has requested a separate
company-specific rate. Red Point is a Hong King company wholly owned by
non-PRC nationals. Hong Kong companies are treated as market-economy
companies because it is considered as a separate customs territory
within the PRC, as it was under British rule. See Application of U.S.
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws to Hong Kong, 62 FR 42965
(Aug. 11, 1997). Therefore, we determine that it is appropriate to
calculate a separate rate for Red Point. Yun Choy did not submit any
type of response to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire. We
preliminarily determine that Yun Choy did not establish its entitlement
to a separate rate in this review and is therefore presumed to be part
of the PRC NME entity and, as such, is subject to the PRC country-wide
rate. See ``The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available''
section below.
[[Page 58655]]
The PRC-Wide Rate and Use of Facts Otherwise Available
Both respondents were given the opportunity to respond to the
Department's questionnaire. As explained above, we received a
questionnaire response from Red Point and we have calculated a separate
rate for Red Point. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of subject
merchandise except for entries from Red Point and Max Fortune, a
producer which was excluded from the antidumping duty order.
As discussed above, Yun Choy is appropriately considered part of
the PRC-wide entity. Yun Choy did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an
interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has
been requested by the administering authority, (B) fails to provide
such information by the deadlines for the submission of the information
or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and
(e) of section 782, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this
title, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be
verified as provided in section 782(i), the Department shall, subject
to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the
applicable determination under this title.
Because the PRC entity did not respond to the Department's
questionnaire, we find that, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A)
and (B) of the Act, the use of total facts available is appropriate.
See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for
Two Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People's Republic of China, 65 FR 50183, 50184 (Aug. 17, 2000). For a
more detailed discussion, see the following determinations: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two
Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's
Republic of China, 65 FR 40609, 40611 (June 30, 2000); Final
Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates from the
People's Republic of China, 62 FR 27222, 27224 (May 19, 1997);
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain
Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy, 61 FR 36551, 36552 (July
11, 1996); Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review:
Certain Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Italy, 62 FR 2655 (Jan.
17, 1997). Because Yun Choy provided no information, sections 782(d)
and (e) of the Act are not relevant to our analysis.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if the Department finds
that an interested party ``has failed to cooperate by not acting to the
best of its ability to comply with a request for information,'' the
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the
party as facts otherwise available. Adverse inferences are appropriate
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated full.'' See Statement of
Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the URAA, H. Doc. No. 103-316,
at 870 (1994).
Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as
adverse facts available information derived from the petition, the
final determination from the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation,
a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on
the record. Under section 782(c) of the Act, a respondent has a
responsibility not only to notify the Department if it is unable to
provide requested information but also to provide a ``full explanation
and suggested alternative forms.'' On February 27, 2003, the Department
transmitted its questionnaire to Yun Choy via Federal Express. We
confirmed that Yun Choy signed for and received the questionnaire on
March 3, 2003 (Hong Kong date). Yun Choy did not submit a response to
our questionnaire by the due date, April 7, 2003. On April 11, 2003,
the Department mailed a letter via Federal Express to Yun Choy asking
it to inform the Department as to whether it has submitted or intended
to submit a response to the questionnaire or whether it and its
affiliates did not have any U.S. sales or shipments during the review
period. Yun Choy received the letter on April 14, 2003 (Hong Kong
date), but it did not respond to the letter by the due date, April 21,
2003. Because Yun Choy did not provide a response to the Department's
questionnaire, the Department is unable to determine Yun Choy's
eligibility for a separate rate. Thus, Yun Choy has not rebutted its
presumption of government control and is presumed to be part of the PRC
entity. Therefore, we determine that Yun Choy and, thereby, the PRC-
entity failed to cooperate to the best of its ability, making the use
of an adverse inference appropriate.
In accordance with the Department's practice, we have preliminarily
assigned to the PRC entity (including Yun Choy) the rate of 164.75
percent as adverse facts available. See, e.g., Rescission of Second New
Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Brake Rotors From the People's
Republic of China, 64 FR 61581, 61584 (Nov. 12, 1999). This rate is the
highest dumping margin determined in any segment of this proceeding and
was established in the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Folding Gift Boxes from the
People's Republic of China, 66 FR 58115, 58118 (Nov. 20, 2001) (Final
Determination). In selecting a rate for adverse facts available, the
Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse ``as to
effectuate the purpose of the facts available rule to induce
respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate
information in a timely manner.'' See Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from
Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998).
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that, where the Department
selects from among the facts otherwise available and relies on
``secondary information,'' the Department shall, to the extent
practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources
reasonably at the Department's disposal. Secondary information is
``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870. The word ``corroborate'' means
to determine that the information used has probative value. Id. To
corroborate secondary information, the Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and relevance of the information
to be used. We corroborated the rate of 164.75 percent in the LTFV
investigation. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Folding Gift Boxes From the People's Republic of China,
66 FR 40973, 40976 (Aug. 6, 2001). We have no reason to question the
reliability of this data for this review and no party has argued that
it is not reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of
corroboration, however, the Department will consider information
reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to
have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin
is not appropriate as adverse facts available, the Department will
disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example,
in Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews: Fresh Cut
Flowers from Mexico, 61 FR 6812 (Feb. 22, 1996), the
[[Page 58656]]
Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best
information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the
margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense
resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does
not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v.
United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department
will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of
these unusual circumstances are present here. Therefore, we consider
the PRC-wide rate, which is the rate from the LTFV investigation,
relevant for this review.
Furthermore, since this rate is the rate from the final
determination, we established the reliability and relevance of the rate
in the investigation. See Final Determination. As there is no
information on the record of this review that demonstrates that this
final rate from the final determination is not reliable for use as the
adverse facts available rate for the PRC-wide rate, we determine that
this rate has probative value and, therefore, is an appropriate basis
for the PRC-wide rate to be applied in this review to exports of
subject merchandise by Yun Choy.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is reviewing imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production, valued in a
surrogate market-economy country or countries selected in accordance
with section 773(c)(4) of the Act. In accordance with that provision,
the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or
costs of factors of production in one or more market-economy countries
that are at a level of economic development comparable to the NME
country and are significant producers of comparable merchandise.
The Department has determined that India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri
Lanka, and the Philippines are countries comparable to the PRC in terms
of economic development. See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to Laurie
Parkhill: Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on
Folding Gift Boxes from the People's Republic of China: Request for a
List of Surrogate Countries, dated June 30, 2003. Normally, the
Department will select an appropriate surrogate based on the
availability and reliability of data from these countries. In this
case, we have found that India is a significant producer of comparable
merchandise and we have reliable data from India which we can use to
value the factors of production.
We have used India as the surrogate country and, accordingly, we
have calculated NV using Indian prices to value the PRC producers'
factors of production, when available and appropriate. See Surrogate
Country Selection Memorandum to The File from Jennifer Moats dated
October 3, 2003 (Surrogate Country Memorandum). We have obtained and
relied upon publicly available information wherever possible. See
Factor Valuation Memorandum to The File from Jennifer Moats, dated
October 3, 2003 (Factor Valuation Memorandum).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
of an administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value the factors of production within 20 days
after the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we used export price
(EP) for Red Point because the subject merchandise was sold directly to
unaffiliated customers in the United States prior to importation and
because constructed export price was not otherwise warranted based on
the facts of the record.
We calculated EP based on free-on-board prices to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. We made deductions, where appropriate,
for foreign inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation
and for domestic brokerage and handling in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. All of these services were provided by Hong
Kong companies and charged in Hong Kong dollars. Therefore, valuation
of these charges based on surrogate values was not necessary.
Normal Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if (1) the
merchandise is exported from an NME country and (2) the information
does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.
Factors of production include (1) hours of labor required, (2)
quantities of raw materials employed, (3) amounts of energy and other
utilities consumed, and (4) representative capital costs. We used
factors of production reported by Red Point for materials, energy,
labor, by-products, and packing. We valued all input factors not
obtained from market economies using publicly available published
information as discussed in the ``Surrogate Country'' and ``Factor
Valuations'' sections of this notice.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), where a producer sources
an input from a market economy and pays for it in market-economy
currency, the Department employs the actual price paid for the input to
calculate the factors-based NV. See also Lasko Metal Products v. United
States, 437 F.3d 1442, 1445-1446 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Red Point reported
that some of its inputs were purchased from market economies and paid
for in market-economy currency. See ``Factor Valuations'' section
below.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on factors of production reported by Red Point for the POR. To
calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor quantities by
publicly available Indian surrogate values (except as noted below). In
selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity,
and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input
prices by including freight costs to make them delivered prices. For a
detailed description of all surrogate values used for Red Point, see
the Factor Valuation Memorandum. For a detailed description of all
actual values used for market-economy inputs, see the Red Point
Preliminary Calculation Memorandum dated October 3, 2003.
Because we used Indian import values to value inputs purchased
domestically by the Chinese producers, we added to Indian surrogate
values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the
reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the
distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in
accordance with Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
Except as noted below, we valued raw material inputs using the
average unit import values derived from the World Trade Atlas,
published by the Global Trade Information Services, Inc. See the Global
Trade Information Services Web site at http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm.
(The source of the data for the World Trade Atlas is the Directorate
General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) of the
Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The DGCI&S also releases the
Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade of India.)
As explained above, Red Point purchased certain raw material inputs
[[Page 58657]]
from market-economy suppliers and paid for them in market-economy
currencies. See Red Point's April 21, 2003, section D response at pages
5-6 for a description of these inputs. The evidence provided by Red
Point indicated that its market-economy purchases of these inputs were
paid for by Red Point in a market-economy currency. See Red Point's
April 21, 2003, section D response at page 6. Therefore, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(1), the Department has determined to use the
market-economy prices as reported by Red Point to value these inputs
from both market-economy and NME suppliers because the market-economy
inputs represented a significant quantity of the inputs in each case
and they were paid for in a market-economy currency.
To value electricity, we used the all-India average for industrial
electricity as reported in Annexure 4.26 of the Annual Report (2001-02)
on The Working of State Electricity Boards & Electricity Departments,
published by the Planning Commission (Power & Energy Division),
Government of India, in May 2002. This information is included in
Exhibit 11 of Red Point's August 25, 2003, submission.
Red Point reported the following packing inputs: cartons, shrink
wrap, tape, labels, keep-fresh film, and woodfree paper. We used the
World Trade Atlas for Red Point to value these items. See the Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
We used Indian transport information to value delivery costs for
raw materials. To calculate domestic inland freight (by truck), we used
a price report from Iron & Steel Newsletter for transporting material
between Mumbai and Pune, Mumbai and Vapi/Daman, and Delhi and Gurgaon
which was provided in Exhibit 12 of Red Point's August 25, 2003,
surrogate-value submission. We used the rates between these cities
because they were within 200 kilometers of each other and comparable to
the distance between Red Point's factory and Hong Kong, the port of
exportation. We converted the Indian Rupee value to U.S. dollars.
Red Point identified a by-product (paperboard scrap) which it
claimed was sold to customers in the PRC. The Department has offset Red
Point's cost of production by the value of a reported by-product where
Red Point's response indicated that it was sold. See the Factor
Valuation Memorandum for a complete discussion of by-product credits
given and the surrogate value used.
To value factory overhead expenses, selling, general and
administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit, we calculated a rate based
on financial statements from an Indian producer of comparable
merchandise, Rollatainers Limited. For a further discussion of the
surrogate values for overhead, SG&A, and profit, see the Factor
Valuation Memorandum.
For labor, consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), we used the PRC
regression-based wage rate at Import Administration's home page,
Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in February 2003. See
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The source of the wage-rate
data on the Import Administration's Web site is the 2001 Year Book of
Labour Statistics, International Labor Office (Geneva: 2001), Chapter
5B: Wages in Manufacturing.
Preliminary Results of Review
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the following
percentage weighted-average dumping margins on folding gift boxes for
the period August 6, 2001, through December 31, 2002:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Exporter/manufacturer (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red Point.................................................... 0.00
PRC-wide rate (including Yun Choy)........................... 164.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), interested parties may submit
case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Furthermore, as discussed in 19 CFR 351.309(d), rebuttal briefs, which
must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed
within 5 days after the time limit for filing the case brief. Parties
who submit case or rebuttal briefs for this review are requested to
submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief
summary of the argument (five pages maximum, including footnotes) with
an electronic version included. A list of authorities used should
accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. See 19 CFR
351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Issues raised in a hearing will be limited to those raised in the
respective case and rebuttal briefs. If requested, a hearing will be
held at the main Commerce Department building at a time and location to
be determined. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to
participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, United States Department
of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of
this notice. A request should contain (1) the party's name, address,
and telephone number, (2) the number of participants, and (3) a list of
the issues to be discussed. Parties should confirm by telephone the
date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled
date.
The Department will publish the final results of this
administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues
raised in any such written briefs. The Department will issue the final
results of review within 120 days of publication of these preliminary
results.
Assessment Rates
The Department shall determine, and the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate
entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated,
whenever possible, an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific
assessment value for subject merchandise.
Cash-Deposit Requirements
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for
all shipments of folding gift boxes entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as
provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rates
for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final
results of review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed
companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be
the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or
the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate
will be the rate established for the most recent period for the
manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash-deposit rate for all
other manufacturers or exporters (except for Max Fortune, which was
excluded from the antidumping duty order) will continue to be the
``PRC-wide'' rate from the LTFV investigation. See Final Determination.
These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect
until publication of the final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping
[[Page 58658]]
duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the
Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
These preliminary results of administrative review are issued and
published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: October 3, 2003.
James J. Jochum,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-25773 Filed 10-9-03; 8:45 am]